They HAD a Secret

Larry Shaffer, Stephanie O'Keeffe, Aaron Hayden

I call her Jane Doe

While public documents czar Alan Cote denied my appeal for full disclosure of the 8/30/10 Select Board executive session minutes where town officials huddled in secret for over an hour to discuss the strikingly sudden "retirement" of town manager Laurence Shaffer (the very night the Board was scheduled to publicly discuss his annual "performance evaluation"), the town grudgingly complied with my request for Shaffer's "Employment Settlement and release of claims" agreement and that of his office administrative assistant who also, coincidentally enough, simultaneously disappeared.

So here's the executive summary, but I invite you to click on the hotlinks below to read the documents in full: Shaffer's platinum parachute, after only four years of "service" to the town, a whopping $62,129.

And Jane Doe, serving only three-and-a-half years (earning $43,900 last year) sauntered off with $23,012. In the private sector you would be lucky to get a couple weeks to a month pay as severance (and even then only after a ten year minimum service), or in her case about $3,000 and Shaffer's case maybe $10,000.

“I’ve never heard of anybody, public sector or private sector, getting severance pay when they voluntarily leave employment,” said John Tillman, CEO of the Illinois Policy Institute. Interestingly the legal agreements dubbed Jane Doe a "resignation," Mr. Shaffer a "retirement."

"In a week's time I'll be 62 years old and indeed I have been thinking about retirement," Shaffer told the Select Board back then (with two years still left on his contract). That final spring in Amherst Mr Shaffer retired a few things: divorcing his wife and selling his home on Amity Street.

But merely a month after his October 1 "retirement" he was seeking a city manager job in Michigan. According to the 12/10/10 Birmingham Patch: "Because Shaffer's significant other teaches at Central Michigan University in Mount Pleasant, commissioners asked him about whether he plans to commute. Shaffer assured them that he's fully open to making Birmingham his permanent home if he is offered the position and that he's here to stay."

That "significant other" is former UMass psychology professor Jane Ashby who, five years ago, sat on the original Amherst "citizen search committee" that chose Shaffer over two other highly qualified candidates; she too divorced her spouse in Amherst last spring and headed off to Central Michigan University, a state school that made CBS Money Watch list of "25 Colleges With the Worst Professors."

The whereabouts of Shaffer's former administrative assistant is currently unknown.

Jane Doe's agreement
Click links above and below to read
Larry Shaffer's agreement

official minutes of 80 minute 8 /30 executive session (all two sentences, where one of them was redacted)

There He Goes Again

Larry Shaffer (far left) gets thumbs down from Jackson, Michigan City Council

UPDATE:  Friday afternoon.  Since the Jackson City Council clearly violated their Open Meeting Law to settle with Mr Shaffer (at his urging of course), just as the Amherst Select Board pushed the envelope two years ago, perhaps the $64,000 settlement will be thrown out by a judge.

####

So it will come as little surprise to those in Amherst who were paying attention during the short reign of Town Mangler Larry Shaffer that he has once again suddenly decided to retire in the middle of his contract, taking with him--after only a year of service--a cushy $64,000 in taxpayer monies, almost exactly the same amount he absconded with from Amherst as he suddenly "took stock" of his life and decided to retire...at least until he found another job.

One of the weaknesses of the Mass Public Documents Law is exempting employee performance evaluations from exposure.  When Shaffer and the Amherst Select Board hatched his $62,000  severance package  they did so under the cloak of an "executive session" and even refused to take proper notes during that hour-and-twenty-minute closed door pow wow, summing up the entire meeting in just two sentences and redacting one of the two when responding to my request for the meeting minutes.

And now, two years later, the Jackson City Council has given Larry Shaffer a $64,000 going away present after meeting in a brief executive session. Furthermore the severance package contains a mutual "non disparage" clause to forever gag those public officials.

At the very least Larry Shaffer's two recent fiascos will be forever available via the web as a warning to the next community.  After all, a little transparency now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. (Note to readers: last line, borrowed from Thomas Jefferson, is sarcasm.)

What goes around...

Larry Shaffer turns on the charm for Amherst Town Meeting

UPDATE Wednesday April 20: The Gazette today reports a sanitized version of Mr. Shaffer's new job prospects. Interestingly enough it appears in the print edition but not online. Editors probably did not want to allow Comments that could bring up dirty laundry. UPDATE: 8:45 AM: So about an hour after I posted that first update it magically appeared online. Coincidence I guess.
######################################
ORIGINAL POST: Sunday evening (a tad ahead of the Gazette)

My two site meters act like canaries in a coal mine, early alerting me to something of note suddenly occurring. On Tuesday a tsunami of hits from Facebook landing on a "Party House of the Weekend" post from last December almost crashed my widget.

I was actually in the middle of drafting an email to APD wondering if something terrible had just happened at 23 Tracy Circle (thinking somebody blew their brains out after posting a suicide note on Facebook linking back to me) when I managed to trace it back to the juvenile "F_ck the Fines" Facebook group.

Then a couple days ago I noticed numerous hits coming from Michigan all Googling "Larry Shaffer, Amherst" with some of them adding the term "gay". Hmm...

Turns out that former Amherst Town Manager Larry Shaffer is tops on the list for city manager of Jackson, Michigan a city about the size of Amherst (which should be a city). The gay thing is probably from his public interview use of the term "partner" for his um, other woman, Jane Ashby.

The one he divorced his wife over, and then suddenly retired from bucolic Amherst (with a taxpayer funded $62-K going away present) to follow her out to her new professorship at Central Michigan University.

I asked a conservative buddy of mine who makes Michigan her home which scenario would play better in Jackson: A gay man applying for city manager or a straight one who had an affair with his secretary while still married (costing taxpayers $23,000 to hush up) then flew the coop to be with yet another woman. All hypothetical examples of course.

Considering Michigan is more conservative than Massachusetts, with a huge evangelical community in Grand Rapids and a large Muslim population outside Detroit, it sounds like neither of my hypothetical scenarios would play out well.

So forget Mr. Shaffer's folly of charging a tax on Christmas trees sold by Boy Scouts, or getting spanked by the ACLU for attempting a heavy handed takeover of the July 4th Parade to accommodate left wing zealots or even purposely fudging figures to protect a municipally owned black hole of a golf course; his final undoing is a character flaw as old as Adam and Eve--and in this cyber age, one that cannot be hidden behind a fig leaf.



My conservative Michigan buddy agrees

Take my toys and go home!

The spoilsports are at it again. This time it’s the Amherst League of Women Voters who wishes to rain on our Parade.

They sent a letter to the Town Manager last week (knowing it would be picked up by the media) saying they are boycotting the July 4’th Parade because we, as a private entity, were not allowing everything and anything to march.

Kevin Joy and I met with them three months ago in my office and both Kevin and I really thought we had come to terms. They were not aware, for instance, that a public parade sponsored by the town (and I really worry about the 250’th Anniversary Parade two years from now) would have to allow anything and everything protected by the First Amendment.

Yes we all know you can’t yell “terrorist attack” in a crowded movie theatre. But there are some amazing things you can do.

For instance the F-word. Okay yeah, I use that one on occasion but NEVER in public. Or the famous, Only In Amherst, use of the C-word (for female genitals) or the N-word…that is, apparently, okay for rappers to use but not white guys. I would ban anybody from using it.

The League of Women Voters expressed concerned that our Parade Committee has no “elected” town officials. Well last time I looked, Kevin Joy and Larry Kelley are elected Town Meeting members and as such we even have Foreign Policy experience.

And last March 28’ I was also ELECTED to the powerful Amherst Redevelopment authority (after serving over ten years as the Governor’s appointee).

Interestingly at this point, only days from the Parade, we have not denied ANYBODY marching rights. Although yes, because this event is a Politics Free Zone, if someone wanted to march with an anti-Iraq war sign they would be denied.

But if someone wanted to march with a PRO-Iraq war sign, they too would be denied.

To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven

###################################################################################
Monday morning update: So naturally, the Gazette puts this trumped up deja vu controversy on the Front Page. I just found this exchange from last year:

In a message to Amherst listserve dated 7/65/06 1:24:02 PM, Amherst AC writes:

For those who have not followed this story this year, and I’m assuming that is this entire listserve, let me run it down chronologically: Without coming before the Parade committee to even ask what is allowed this year, the Democratic Town Committee sent a letter to the Amherst Bulletin (without sending it to the Parade Committee) saying they refused to march in the parade this year because they could not push their anti Iraq war policy.

The Gazette picked up the issue before the Bulletin went to press and then the Springfield Republican followed up with a Page One story also covered by Ch. 40 TV.
(That reminds me, I have to send the Democratic Town Committee a ‘Thank You’ note for the thousand$ in free publicity).

The parade went off perfectly. The protestors got their headlines and plenty of visibility from the sidelines. The parade committee maintained the integrity of the line of march. As far as I’m concerned, EVERYBODY won.

Then I’m forwarded an email circulated to the Democratic Town Committee suggesting they flood the Select board and Town Manager with critical comments about the parade, before we can get another permit.

So I call the Town Managers office early on July 5’th and I’m told another group (ACTV) has reserved 7/4/07 for a parade, and the town only allows one per day along any given route.

Kevin Joy and I go to Town Hall (Wednesday) and while standing there filling out the form Charlie Scherpa walks in and immediately signs it. So we hand in our completed form (something ACTV has not yet done).

The Town Manager requests a meeting for the next day (Thursday) to discuss the permit. Meeting could not have gone any better as far as we were concerned. He ran down his service background (Army, early 1970’s) as well as his family and then quickly said, “I’m going to sign your permit.”

A few hours later we get a waffling email. I respond immediately reminding him of what took place in the meeting. Again Mr. Shaffer says he will sign the permit. I assume he’s a stand up guy, so I assume the permit is now signed.

But, last year a mysterious addition appeared in the Parade Permit process saying you need to go before the Select board to get permission for a “street closing.”

So in the very near future we will go before the Select board to request the street closing. And yes, if they attempt a quid pro quo—street closing for allowing all signs—then we will refuse, they will reject our permit, and we will go to Superior Court.

Only in Amherst (Maybe I’ll start a BLOG)
Larry

In a message dated 7/6/06 11:38:52 AM, ShafferL@amherstma.gov writes:

Larry, Kevin and Attorney Serduck,

Thank you for taking the time to meet with me relative to the Parade Permit for July 4, 2007. At the meeting, I told you that it was my intent to sign the permit. I intend to do that in the short term. However, what remains important to me and what I will continue to pursue with you, is how the parade might serve as a means to bring us together as a community to support traditional American values espoused by the Independence Day celebration (Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and, in particular, the Bill of Rights). To the degree that the Parade continues to be a vehicle that celebrates and educates our community on traditional values, then you will have my support. However, I will continue to respectfully request that those who wish to espouse a position that may run counter to the views of the parade sponsors be allowed to participate. Let’s continue to discuss how that might happen.

Sincerely,

Larry Shaffer


In a message dated 7/6/06 12:42:20 PM, Amherst AC writes:

Hey Larry,

Thank you for taking the time so early in your tenure to consider what some may deem a frivolous issue. However, as someone who loves written communication, it always makes me nervous when “however” appears more than once in a short dispatch.

My impression of our meeting was that you would sign the permit, PERIOD: No quid pro quo. I made it perfectly clear that the Parade Committee would not allow Mary Wentworth to march with blatant anti-Iraq war signs, just as we would not allow the KKK to march with racist signs.

We already allow “those who wish to espouse a position that may run counter to the views of the parade sponsors to participate”. Last time I looked, not a single member of the July 4’th Parade Committee was a member or supporter of SAGE, a peace activist group that disparages the current Commander in Chief, at a time when our nation is at war. Yet they have marched all five years, with placards celebrating the Bill or Rights (well, except for the 2'nd Amendment).

We are, of course, always open to discussion about who may participate in the parade. And if their message “celebrates and educates our community on traditional values”, we will most assuredly not have a problem,


Larry Kelley
Amherst July 4’th Parade Committee
(But speaking as an individual)


In a message dated 7/6/06 1:13:49 PM, ShafferL@amherstma.gov writes:

Larry,

Thank you for your note. I shall sign the permit. But in conjunction with that assurance, I would like a commitment that the parade be as inclusive as possible because of your regard for the principles that are celebrated on July 4th. As Lincoln said, I wish to appeal to your better angels.

I would very much encourage everyone to look towards a resolution that brings the community together rather than an outcome that divides us.

I know I can count on your understanding and cooperation.

Larry

In a message dated 7/6/06 4:24:02 PM, Amherst AC writes:

Hey Larry,

Thank you!

Rest assured that (although speaking for myself) our utmost concern is to bring together the community for a brief shining moment to celebrate the principles that created this, somewhat flawed, but most wondrous experiment in democracy.

Lincoln also said “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

Larry


New to the post, Shaffer to tackle parade concerns

BY MARY CAREY STAFF WRITER
AMHERST - This year's Fourth of July parade went off without a hitch, but some parties remain concerned over the private organizers' banning of would-be marchers with anti-war messages.

Now, Laurence Shaffer, the new town manager, has been drawn into the still-simmering debate.

'I need to be able to add to the value of the community by bringing disparate groups together,' Shaffer said Thursday.

By his third day on the job, Shaffer, the former town administrator in Vernon, Conn., had already heard from critics of the parade objecting to the limitations imposed by the private organizers.

Last year, the Select Board discussed whether the town could take over the parade or refuse to allow municipal employees to march in it as representatives of the town, but nothing came of the discussions.

Shaffer has now weighed in, after meeting with parade organizer Larry Kelley.

The new town manager said he will sign the permit for next year's parade, but he wants to meet with the organizers again to discuss making the parade more inclusive.

'To the degree that the parade is divisive in the community, it is counterproductive and inconsistent with everyone's goals of celebrating traditional American values,' Shaffer said.

Kelley, meanwhile, insists that the parade organizers will not allow protesters to march with 'blatant anti-war signs, just as we would not allow the KKK to march with racist signs.'

Shaffer said he expects the Select Board 'will take an interest' in the topic, 'and they will want to understand what opportunities might exist to push that agenda along, presumably.'

Mary Carey can be reached at mcarey@gazettenet.com.
Thank you for submitting your comments!
View all comments (1)

Larry Kelley [ Posted on: Friday - July 07, 2006 at 01:02 PM]
Actually, the new Town Manager met with original refounder of the parade, Kevin Joy and our attorney Michael Serduck as well. And in that meeting (Thursday morning) very clearly said he would sign our Parade permit without any stipulations (other than to give "consideration" to all groups, something we always do). My comment about not allowing KKK signs as well as anti war signs is not to compare peace activists with the KKK. It should also be noted that we would not allow PRO Iraq war signs either. Can't we all just get along for one holiday a year?


In a message dated 7/7/06 1:59:17 PM, terryfranklin@yahoo.com writes:


Larry --

I like the idea of an unrestricted parade. [See
letter to Nick Grabbe below.]

Of course it would have to be a different parade on
a different day than the 4th -- since so many groups
would drop out after they saw who I would invite.

-- Terry F.


****************************************************

To the Editor,

I am intrigued by the proposal being discussed for
another parade, in which no one would be excluded.
In addition to the fire engines from Holyoke, and
the bagpipers from Pittsfield, we would have the Ku
Klux Klan from New Bedford, The Aryan Nations from
Boston, the Nazi Party from Lowell, and the Outlaws
Motorcycle Gang from Worcester.
I'm serious. I'm not being "tongue in cheek" this
time, as I often am in my letters.
Amherst is a town which pays a lot of lip service
to the First Amendment, but which really despises
it. If we could actually welcome people with
different views -- no matter if they were
distasteful or offensive -- we would be a shining
light for the rest of the nation.

Terry Franklin


In a message dated 7/7/06 2:19:28 PM, Amherst AC writes:

Hey Terry,

Yeah, I think you would have trouble getting police, fire, Vets, and the Dakin Animal Shelter with that list. I mentioned to the ACTV guy who wants to steal our 7/4 Parade, that very notion: unrestricted signs could interest the KKK (who would probably love to march in the Peoples Republic of Amherst)
Larry

Amherst 7/4 Parade Fireworks

What would the Amherst July 4’th Parade be like without Amherst police, fire or ambulance apparatus in the line of march? An embarrassment!

There they go again! The Amherst Town Democratic Committee “corralled” like-minded activist groups to meet with Amherst Town Manager Larry Shaffer to discuss pulling town equipment from the Parade because we will not open it up to anyone and anything looking for exposure on that day. And yes, we pay for our Police detail to direct traffic (unlike the Pot Rally folks)

http://www.amherstdemocrats.org/
Old Business:

Private Amherst 4th of July Parade: Being fond of our 1st Amendment rights, ADTC has refrained for 2 years from participating.

On 2 days' notice, Town Mgr. Larry Schaffer carved out time for an open meeting on Friday, 21 Feb., with ADTC Chair Harry Brooks; the Chairs of the Green & Republican Town Committees; League of Women Voters; & SAGE, to consider concerns that many of us share.

More on this patriotic/matriotic effort later.

From: AmherstAC@aol.com
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 12:24 PM
To: Shaffer, Larry
Subject: 7/4 Parade

Larry,
If Amherst is going to pull police and fire apparatus from the Parade this year we would appreciate a heads up as early as possible. And we would also have appreciated an invite to the "open meeting" last Friday morning that you carved out time for on only two days notice.
Larry Kelley
July 4'th Parade Committee


From: Shaffer, Larry
To: AmherstAC@aol.com
Sent: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 1:31 pm
Subject: RE: 7/4 Parade

Larry,
We should talk. Have you rejected any applications for perspective participants in the 4th of July parade for 2008?
Larry

From: amherstac@aol.com
To: ShafferL@amherstma.gov
Sent: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 1:58 pm
Subject: Re: 7/4 Parade

Larry,
No, we have not. And in fact, we have never officially rejected anybody since reconstituting the Parade in 2002.
Larry

"...the bombs bursting in air."

Click to enlarge

UPDATE: 2:42 PM
Just stole this response off of SelectPerson Stephanie's blog. Note to readers: I have reset my settings to allow for 'Anonymous Comments' so please, be nice.


neil said:

Mr. Shaffer is a public servant who has made new policy, with or without consultation with his boss Mr. Weiss. Why can’t the public obtain a copy of his rationale in writing? What are the moral, legal or political justifications and how does he weigh the competing interests of the Parade Committee, protest advocates and other interested parties such as the parade-going public? I ask these questions not as a rhetorical device but because if Mr. Shaffer would provide the rationale, the policy and whether it is grounded in well-reasoned principles could be tested by public review. Certainly most of the work has already been done, it’s just a matter of committing it to paper. The public - those of us who must submit to the policy - await.

The position held by protest advocates is absolute. They claim an absolute right to protest in the Parade Committee’s Independence Day Parade. Neither Mr. Shaffer nor his boss Mr. Weiss disagree. Neither Mr. Shaffer nor Mr. Weiss have asked protest advocates to consider an alternative form or forum for protest on that day. Both Mr. Shaffer and his boss Mr. Weiss require the Parade Committee to concede their free speech and their right of association to the demands of protest advocates.

Select Board members Ms. O’Keefe and Ms. Brewer want town government to discuss and debate the new policy on its merits, to understand Mr. Shaffer’s policy requirements and the reasons for them, to understand the Parade Committee’s purpose and the merit or lack of merit in excluding protest marchers, to understand protest advocates’ demands and to explore how protest advocates’ demands can reasonably and satisfactorily be met. I think Select Board members O’Keefe and Brewer are on the right track and I endorse the transparency and reasoned analysis they advocate. Please, sign me up for more of their style of government.

I was confused by the Select Board meeting minutes. Should I believe Mr. Larry Shaffer’s press release

TOWN OF AMHERST TO ORGANIZE AND CONDUCT JULY 4TH PARADE IN 2009
and Amherst Leisure Services Parade Application for 4/7/9 9AM-5PM

that make it clear the town of Amherst has decided to disenfranchise the Parade Committee because the Parade Committee chooses to not include protest marchers or what Mr. Shaffer said in the Select Board Meeting?


“Mr. Shaffer said that there is still time before the 2009 parade and that he is happy to discuss with the parade committee how the parade might be run, and suggested that they talk about it. He said that the issues involved are very important but that the corrections for those issues are very small, and that he is happy to talk about it and would welcome a solution.”

What Mr. Shaffer means is that he "is happy to discuss with the parade committee how the parade...[must] be run” as a condition for getting the permit to run it on July 4, 2009. For Mr. Shaffer the “issues [separating the town and the Parade Committee] are very small” but he is being coy and he won’t spell it out. I will: Allow the 7/4/9 parade to be used by protest advocates and the town of Amherst will issue the Parade Committee a permit, otherwise the Parade Committee will be denied. I wonder if this condition as a matter of town policy is compelled speech and as such, misuse of authority.

It is clear Mr. Shaffer and his boss Mr. Weiss believe protest advocates are morally, legally or politically right and the Parade Committee are wrong. Mr. Shaffer and his boss Mr. Weiss cannot wrap their heads around the fact the Parade Committee has free speech rights too and that when balancing “competing interests”, a list of good solutions does not include giving the whole baby to one party.

Convinced of their own rectitude, Mr. Shaffer and his boss Mr. Weiss’ believe a conversation with Mr. Joy would rightly be a one-way street: Concede to protest advocates’ demands or the Parade committee will be denied a Parade permit for 7/4/9. Mr. Joy might consider sending Mr. Shaffer and his boss Mr. Weiss court decisions on freedom of speech and right of association. Mr. Joy did one better. He gave Mr. Shaffer and his boss Mr. Weiss a copy of the Amherst 250th Anniversary celebration parade rules.

The Amherst 250th Anniversary celebration parade rules do not allow protest in the parade. And still, neither Shaffer nor Weiss recognize or agree that a parade celebration does not demand the right to protest. A blue ribbon panel of Amherst citizens produced the rules for the Amherst 250th Anniversary celebration parade, not a group of conservative-minded Amherst citizens like those who constitute the Parade Committee.

Here's my best assessment of Mr. Shaffer and his boss Mr. Wiess' official policy:

The Town of Amherst will not issue the Parade Committee a permit to conduct their Independence Day Parade in 2009 unless it consents to concede its right of association.

The Parade Committee's right of association has no authority when balanced against protest advocates right to exercise free speech including protest in the Parade Committee's Independence Day parade as marchers.


Let’s get Mr. Shaffer's policy rationale in writing and go from there.
April 30, 2008 2:35 PM


SelectPerson Stephanie O'Keeffe's Blog:

Public Comment

Kevin Joy of the Amherst July Fourth Parade Committee said that the committee had sought a permit last week to conduct the 2009 July Fourth parade, and were told that the Town had filed a permit to hold a parade on that day from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mr. Joy said that the filing of the Town’s permit and the hours therein appeared to be a definitive determination by the Town Manager that the Town would take over that parade and that no other parade would be allowed on that day. He asked that the Town Manager state for the record that the current parade committee would no longer be running the July Fourth parade in 2009.
Mr. Shaffer said that there is still time before the 2009 parade and that he is happy to discuss with the parade committee how the parade might be run, and suggested that they talk about it. He said that the issues involved are very important but that the corrections for those issues are very small, and that he is happy to talk about it and would welcome a solution.
Mr. Joy said that the permit had already been taken out by the Town, and read the last paragraph of the Town Manager’s press release regarding parade plans, and called that “pretty definitive.” Mr. Joy spoke of how long it takes to plan such a parade, suggesting a year to a year and a half.
Mr. Joy showed a document containing three paragraphs of expectations and regulations for parade participants. He said that he had been asked to consult on the Town’s 250th Anniversary celebration parade, and had reluctantly agreed. He said that he received a 13-page document f that parade’s regulations, and read from part of it about marching units being able to carry a banner with only the group’s name and without any corporate sponsorship, that only the parade-approved banner would be allowed and that no additional signs, placards, literature or other messages would be allowed to be shown, distributed or shouted, and so forth. He said there were many pages of such regulations and said that he believed that they were more restrictive on people’s rights than the regulations put forth by the July Fourth parade committee.
Mr. Weiss said that the Select Board would need to determine what role if any it had in the issue, and that it would need to schedule time to do that, probably in June after the conclusion of Town Meeting, if we were to opt to address it as a Select Board.
I said that I thought we should do that and that an open and televised discussion of the issue would be helpful for the public to participate in and watch. Ms. Brewer said that the rules for 250th parade need to be addressed, and that they may have been put together by that committee without knowledge of the July Fourth parade issues.
Mr. Shaffer agreed that the 250th parade rules need to be looked at, and said that as keepers of the public way, that the Select Board certainly has a role in the parade discussion and that it is in the Select Board’s authority to be involved with this issue if it so chooses.
Ms. Awad said that while the Select Board controls the public ways, the Town Manager controls parade permits, and that the Select Board doesn’t control what takes place on the public ways once a permit for their use has been issued. She said she completely supports the Town Manager’s filing for a permit for the 2009 parade. She said she isn’t sure that the Select Board should engage in a public discussion on the issue, unless it does so as a public forum that invites people from both sides to present their concerns and arguments. She said she didn’t think the Select Board should vote or express opinions when receiving those comments.
Ms. Brewer said she wanted consideration of whether or not the Select Board would officially participate in the parade to be part of a future discussion.

Let the Judge decide...

On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:06:08 PM, amherstac@aol.com wrote:
From: amherstac@aol.com
Subject: Appeal for Public Documents denial
Date: February 12, 2009 12:06:08 PM EST
To: pre@sec.state.ma.us

Secretary of the Commonwealth
Public Records Division
McCormack Building, Room 1719
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108

I wish to appeal Amherst Town Manager Laurence Shaffer’s denial of my Public Documents Request dated 1/26/09. The document in question is an email of complaint to the town manager with job related criticism including the possible disappearance of town equipment; that statement was also copied to all five Amherst Select Board members. Therefor I believe it is a public document.

That whistleblower is no longer working as a municipal employee and will be receiving money (either tax money or insurance money) as severance compensation. I firmly believe the general public has a right to know.

And because that individual signed a “non disclosure” agreement with the town, he cannot tell his side of the story or make those potentially serious allegations public.

Sincerely Yours,

Larry Kelley
Amherst Town Meeting member
Amherst Redevelopment Authority
http://www.onlyintherepublicofamherst.blogspot.com/

---Original Message-----
From: Shallow, Joanne (SEC)
To: amherstac@aol.com
Sent: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:32 pm
Subject: RE: Appeal for Public Documents denial

your case number is SPR09.044. In app one week you will receive a formal
acknowledgement letter in the mail with the case number and name of the attorney
assigned to review your appeal. What is you mailing address


On Feb 12, 2009, at 1:02:33 PM, amherstac@aol.com wrote:

Hi Joanne,
Sorry, I should have included that (and today's date):
Larry Kelley
460 West St.
Amherst, Ma. 01002
Thank you for a prompt response.
Larry

##################################################################
Memo: Town Manager
Re: Complaint from municipal Information Technology Department worker
1/26/09
Dear Mr. Shaffer,

Could I please get any written or electronic correspondence during the calendar year 2008 up to today’s date concerning a complaint by an Information Technology municipal employee on how the department is/was being managed including his communications, and any response from your office to him, the IT manager or the Amherst Select Board?

Larry Kelley

amherstac@aol.com
Cc: Amherst Select Board

From: Shaffer, Larry
To: amherstac@aol.com
Sent: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 4:22 pm
Subject: RE: Public Documents Request

Dear Mr. Kelley,

Could you be more specific with your request?

Thank you.

Larry

From: amherstac@aol.com
To: ShafferL@amherstma.gov
Sent: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 4:27 pm

Hey Larry,

Specifically an email sent to you and Cc'd to the Select Board, I believe in November, from XXXXXX who is now no longer employed with the town.


Larry


From: Shaffer, Larry
To: LarryK4
Cc: DJENKINS@K-PLAW.COM; Zlogar, Kay ; Eunice Torres

Sent: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 5:12 pm

Subject: FW: Request for Documents

Larry:

Please let this acknowledge receipt of your e-mail of January 26, 2009, requesting production of an e-mail from XXXXXX to myself and the Board of Selectmen in November 2008. Although record responsive to your request exist, such documents may be withheld from disclosure pursuant to the Public Record Law.

The document may be withheld pursuant to:

Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Exemption (c) permits a custodian to withhold records that are:

Personnel and medical files or information; also any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

The Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) has defined personnel records to include any records that would be helpful in making determinations regarding hiring and firing. Wakefield Teachers Association v. School Committee of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). The court specifically noted that employee work evaluations and promotion and termination information pertaining to a particular employee fall within the definition of personnel records. Thus, certain responsive records are exempt as they fall within the definition of personnel records and relate to specifically named individuals.

Exemption (d). The document relates to the development of policy. Exemption (d) is intended to avoid release of materials that could taint the deliberative process if prematurely disclosed and applies to:

Inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters relating to policy positions being developed by the agency; but this sub clause shall not apply to reasonably completed factual studies or reports on which the development of such policy positions has been or may be based.

The application of the exemption is limited to recommendations on legal and policy matters found within an ongoing deliberative process. Babets v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Human Services, 403 Mass. 230, 237 n.8 (1988). In considering exemption (d), the court in General Electric Company v. Department of Environmental Protection, 429 Mass. 798, 807 (1999) stated, “The purpose of exemption (d) is to foster independent discussions between those responsible for a governmental decision in order to secure the quality of the decision.” Id. Accordingly, premature disclosure of the document may jeopardize the Town’s ability to analyze the issues, consider the recommendations of the employee, and reach a decision as to how to proceed in this matter. As such, responsive records are exempt pursuant to exemption (d) of the Public Records Law.

Exemption (f). Further, the requested report contains innumerable details regarding voluntary complainants and witnesses. Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law allows a custodian of records to withhold from disclosure those records that are:

Investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.

One of the purposes of this exemption is to encourage people to come forward and co-operate in matters under investigation. Globe Newspaper Company, 419 Mass. at 863; Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 354 N.E.2d 872 (1976). Thus, exemption (f) permits the permanent withholding of any details that would tend to identify complainants and voluntary witnesses, even in those instances where an investigation has concluded.

As noted, the responsive records are replete with details that would identify complainants, as well as witnesses that voluntarily provided information and cooperated with the investigation. The SJC has held that, “[t]he inquiry as to what constitutes identifying information regarding an individual . . . must be considered not only from the viewpoint of the public, but also from the vantage of those who are familiar with the individual…” Globe Newspaper Company v. Boston Retirement Board, 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). Considering the content of the responsive records from the perspective of the public, as well as those who are familiar with the subject matter, the names and identifying details of the voluntary witnesses and complainants are inextricably intertwined with the remainder of the information contained in the document. The identifying details cannot be redacted in such a way so as to permit disclosure of the records without identifying the individuals involved.

Stated differently, due to the small number of individuals involved in the investigation and their involvement with the matters at issue in the document, the document may not be redacted in such a way so as to avoid the possibility that the unredacted portion of the records may indirectly identify these individuals. Accordingly, the responsive documents will be withheld from disclosure pursuant to exemption (f).

Based on the above your public records request is denied. You may appeal this decision to the Supervisor of Public Records.

Very truly yours,

Laurence Shaffer
Town Manager

I of course hit "reply all," and since the Town Manager is a veteran I'm sure he gets the reference:

Sent: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 5:41 pm
Subject: Re: Request for Documents
To: Amherst Town Manager
From: Larry Kelley
Re: Public Records hoarding

Dear Laurence,

Nuts!

Very truly yours,

Larry K
#############################################################
I then get a hit on this blog at 5:55 PM (less than 15 minutes later) from someone in Boston doing a Google search: 'Open Meeting Law, Public Records Law, Amherst Town Manager'. And of course, the only folks outside Amherst on that email 'reply all' list was the town law firm, those Big City Boys, Kopelman and Paige, P.C. Hmmm... But you would think Big Time lawyers would do their research BEFORE giving their paid opinions.


You may want to turn up your volume slightly to catch all of this because not only did ACTV SCREW UP the video portion of Monday night's SB meeting, I think they also forgot to turn on my microphone (hey, what the Hell do you want from a $250,000 publicly funded operation)

But we can't send a positive message to our employees?
Let's hear if for whistleblowers

If you don't like the report...

Left to right: Shaffer, SB Princess Stephanie O'Keeffe and rookie Aaron Hayden.

So these returns from a search on the venerable Daily Hampshire Gazette under the term Amherst Town Manager Blue ribbon committee really tell the story. "Long awaited" and "coming soon" in the same headline all time/date stamped almost six months ago.

Still no public release of the report. Although my reliable source stated it was submitted to the Town Mangler back in May.

Could it be they did not champion the Override as a cure all?

1. Shaffer: Long-awaited blue ribbon panel conclusions are coming soon Daily Hampshire Gazette

   Wednesday Mar 4, 2009

   AMHERST - A three-member panel studying efficiencies in the organization of the town government and schools for more than a year is preparing to release its conclusions. Town Manager Larry Shaffer ... more...

   By SCOTT MERZBACH Staff Writer

2. Expert budget advice pending, Shaffer says Daily Hampshire Gazette

   Monday Aug 18, 2008

   AMHERST - A Blue Ribbon Task Force designed to give town and school administrators insight into making the government and schools more efficient has not yet made any recommendations. Town Manager L... more...

   By SCOTT MERZBACH Staff Writer

3. Amherst forms 'blue ribbon' budget committee Daily Hampshire Gazette

   Wednesday Dec 19, 2007

   AMHERST - Town officials are seeking advice from both financial experts and regular folks as they prepare spending plans in yet another tight year. Town Manager Larry Shaffer has appointed a "... more...

   By NICK GRABBE Staff Writer

Behold the power (and treat it with respect)

Secretary of the Commonwealth William Francis Galvin
Public Records Division
McCormack Building, Room 1719
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
9/4/09

I wish to file a complaint and request a formal ruling over Amherst Town Manager Larry Shaffer deleting/destroying my electronic comment to his blog, hosted on the official Amherst town taxpayer funded website (http://www.amherstma.gov/), concerning a controversial town owned golf course and the economic impact of recent operations.

‘A Guide to the Massachusetts Public Records Law’ clearly states: “The statutory definition of “public records” does not distinguish between traditional paper records and records stored in the computer medium. Rather, it provides that all information made or received by a public entity, regardless of the manner in which it exists, constitutes “public records.”

My (attempted) Comment to Mr. Shaffer’s blog post was neither obscene nor factually incorrect; therefore he as a "custodian of a public record" had no right to delete/destroy it to prevent public disclosure.

Town Manager Shaffer's disingenuous closing paragraph declared:

“Cherry Hill Golf Course financial report for Fiscal Year 2009 is complete. Cherry Hill revenue for the period is $253, 725. and expenses for the same period are $210,611. Cherry Hill's operation has generated a surplus of close to $100,000. over the last two years. Much credit goes to Linda Chalfant and Barb Bilz for their work at Cherry Hill.”

My attempted response/rebuttal (automatically time/date stamped by Blogger software):

Blogger LarryK4 said...

“Yes Larry, but the purported "profit" does not include hidden costs like employee benefits, insurance, and capital improvements (underground storage tank, security fencing and greens mower) which combined come to over $100-K.”
August 27, 2009 9:46 PM

And while LarryK4 could appear to be an Anonymous source, if you click on the nickname/hotlink it brings you to my blogger Profile Page that clearly spells out my identity. Besides, Mr. Shaffer has previously published comments from me (under the nickname LarryK4) on his blog.

Mr. Shaffer did upload another post on August 29 and at that time would have discovered my Comment concerning his August 7 upload. His blog has “Moderation enabled” so that the blog owner gets to approve comments before publication. In this case he did not.

Since my tax dollars are involved I find that exceedingly unfair.

Over the past ten years the Internet has evolved from the Wild Wild West to standard operating procedure. Blogs are perhaps the most powerful tool for communication/activism spawned by this 21’st Century medium. And for the Town Manager (a public official) to abuse the town website for unfair advantage in Public Relations/Spin is blatantly unfair.

Larry Kelley (AKA: LarryK4)
Amherst Town Meeting Member
Amherst Redevelopment Authority
5th Generation Amherst resident
http://www.onlyintherepublicofamherst.blogspot.com/

The other Larry's Blog (note frequent updates and comments...not!)

They've got a secret

The Select Board gave Larry Shaffer (on left) the thumbs up for his mysteriously sudden retirement
UPDATE: 4/17/11

How it all, finally, turns out
And continues...

###################################
UPDATED: Friday 9: 30 AM

The interesting thing is in the official minutes they did give me only one sentence is redacted. Hmm...

However, the entire one-hour-and-twenty minute executive session "discussion" was covered by Chair Stephanie O'Keeffe (demonstrating her PR flak background) in only two sentences. So the other way to look at it is they redacted half the damn report!

The other telling thing about the Town Attorney blowing me off is that he cites "Wakefield Teachers Association vs School Committee of Wakefield"; and that had to do with a middle school male teacher being disciplined for making inappropriate written comments to a couple of his young female students and being "disciplined" (No, strangely enough he was not fired only docked three weeks pay).

A judge ruled that since the documents in question had to due with the "performance" of a public employee it was exempt from Public Documents Law request. So I guess it boils down to who initiated the break between Shaffer and the town. Did he do it of his own volition because he was getting old and tired and simply wanted to retire or did the Select Board get wind of some inappropriate activity and implement disciplinary action?
###################################

Supervisor of Records
Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth
McCormack Building, Room 1719
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108

Dear Mr. Cote,

I wish to appeal the recent decision of the Town Of Amherst denying me the vast majority of minutes from the 8/30/10 Select Board Executive Session to discuss the sudden retirement of then Town Manager Larry Shaffer, the highest ranking appointed public official in town with an annual salary of $127,528.

The Executive Session lasted over an hour and resulted in the Town Manager being released from his employment contract two years early, AND the payment of four months bonus pay. Since all the monies are tax dollars, The People who financed this arrangement have a right to know the details.

And since Mr. Shaffer almost immediately applied for Town Manager/City Manager positions in the state of Wisconsin, it's obvious he did not abruptly retire from Amherst due to a medical condition.

As always, thank you for service championing the peoples right to know by keeping government records open and transparent.

Larry Kelley
596 South Pleasant St.
Amherst, Ma 01002

So much for "open government" bragged about on the town website


Thought I was doing pretty good up to this point, but I just knew a "However" was coming...




Page 2 legal response via google docs

And the answer is...

9:55 pm. In a stunning, despicable, display of Political Correctness (Only in) Amherst Town Manager Larry Shaffer singlehandedly decided to “Take Over” the July 4’th Parade in 2009.
######################################################
Town Manager Report! 9:17 (only 12 minutes behind schedule):

Shaffer reads a press release about the Parade. Yeah, yeah, yeah we’re “remarkable”--but he quickly gets to “however”...

“First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech." The July 4’th Parade Committee doesn’t get the irony of this free speech situation. I will not mess with them this year (no rescinding their permit or pulling town apparatus). But here come another “however”:

The town will sponsor a July 4’th Parade in 2009. LSSE (the recreation empire) who runs the Fireworks will also run the Parade. And we will exclude competition by refusing a permit for any private group wishing to run an old fashioned non-political Parade.

All individuals should be allowed to carry whatever they want with the exception of hate crimes or obscenity.

Nice try. How the hell are you going to enforce that Mr. Shaffer? If the town runs the Parade then the KKK can march and anti-war zealots can march with a F_CK Bush sign... whatever. As a matter of fact, I may march in their parade with a sign saying “F_CK Shaffer.

Selectperson Alisa Brewer reads our statement sent to the board and Shaffer last week.

9: 30pm Select Person O’Keeffe calls Shaffer on his framing it as a First Amendment issue. It’s not. The Parade Committee has made many attempts at compromise…what has the town done?? Where’s the compromise on the town part?

Select Person Brewer asks about “FUNDING” the town parade???? You know the $15,000 it will cost to put on a professional production with PAID staff doing the organizing.

Ms. Brewer also mentions how Shaffer has come off as "bullying" the Parade Committee with threats. (Shaffer doesn't respond)

Weiss jumps in and says he never saw it as bullying. He also says he sees it as a 'Free Speech' issue. And finds it inappropriate for the town to participate.

The rookie Stein mumbles something about folks should have the right to protest Iraq and Awad talks about the committee yanking folks from the Parade who were carrying signs.

So if it had come to a vote it would have been 3-2 with His Lordship Weiss, former Czar Awad and rookie Stein voting to support Boss Hogg's draconian measure and O'Keeffe and Brewer opposing.

Trouble in Paradise?

 Larry Shaffer fist bump.  About to butt heads with the Mayor

Former Amherst, Massachusetts Town Manager now Jackson, Michigan City Manager Larry Shaffer had a hilarious quote in yesterday's local paper:  "I don't give up easily" asserted Shaffer in response to the city council reversing a yes vote he supports on an expensive solar energy project for their waste water treatment plant.

Mayor Martin Griffin strongly opposes the initiative saying, "I hope the project is dead."  Interesting power struggle.   Since Jackson has a Council/Manager form of government, the Mayor is apparently more of a figurehead than actual CEO.  But, nevertheless, Mayor Griffin looks like a strong guy who takes tough stands (slumlords want him recalled over a rental registration law he supported).

Mr. Shaffer, on the other hand...

Let's see, he took a strong stand on requiring Boy Scouts pay a tax on Christmas Tree sales, a beloved annual (tax free) town tradition for 60 years.  He tried to withhold the parade permit for the privately organized July 4 Parade to create a competing municipal parade that would embrace war protesters.  And he supported the Select Board's annual refusal to fly 29 commemorative American flags in the downtown to remember the horror of 9/11.

Best of all, he railroads the Select Board into giving him a two year extension on his contract and then only a few months later, suddenly, decides to "retire," to Michigan, leaving behind his wife here in Amherst.  Meanwhile his secretary concurrently vanishes with a $25,000 taxpayer payout nobody wishes to talk about.

Doesn't give up easily, eh?  I guess it depends on how you define "easily".  



 

And now, the end is near...

And she better get used to it. Anybody with an issue they feel strongly about (and in Amherst that about describes EVERYBODY) where the Select board votes 3-2 and Anne Awad is the deciding vote, will be sorely tempted to take the matter to court.
UPDATE: Wednesday morning:

In a message dated 5/13/08 10:01:01 PM, Amherst AC writes:
To: Town Manager, Larry Shaffer
From: Larry Kelley, Amherst Town Meeting
5/13/08
Could I please get the written opinion of the town attorney (as mentioned on the floor of Town Meeting on Monday night) concerning Select board member Anne Awad buying a home in South Hadley with her husband declaring it a Homestead Estate and the legality of them staying on as Amherst town officials?

Thanks,
Larry Kelley

In a message dated 5/14/08 8:43:03 AM, ShafferL@amherstma.gov writes:
Larry,
There is no written opinion on that topic. I asked for the Town Counsel’s opinion on residency verbally and received the reply verbally.

Larry Shaffer


In a message dated 5/14/08 8:53:31 AM, Amherst AC writes:
Hey Larry,
Thanks, I kinda figured that.
Larry

A new paradigm for golf?

Once again we witness the night and day difference between current town manager, John Musante, and the former town mangler Larry Shaffer--this time concerning something of paramount importance: truth-telling.

Five years ago Leisure Services and Supplemental Education and Shaffer had the audacity to issue a press release heralding that year's golf balance sheet, trumpeting a $7,200 "profit" while ignoring $40,000 in "hidden costs" (employee benefits, insurance, new equipment).

In an interview with the Springfield Republican town manager Larry Shaffer crossed the line by saying Cherry Hill required "no tax support." I even asked him at a follow up public meeting if he was misquoted, and he again reaffirmed the lie.

At last night's Select Board meeting the new Finance Director Sandy Pooler admitted Cherry Hill fell far short of FY2011 projected revenues ($270,000), which almost matched the actual $263,670 total cost of operations, with an intake of only $223,537 as first reported here six weeks ago, or a loss of over $40,000.

Of course he could not help but parrot the old excuse of that darn New England weather, but at least he also admitted the down economy takes a toll on the rich man's game of golf. Maybe now that transparency is the new marching order from Town Hall, citizens will get a true picture of the cost of golf.

And, unlike the scenic vistas aficionados admire, it ain't pretty.

Kendrick Park mystery structure solved

From: Shaffer, Larry
Sent: Fri 10/2/2009 9:54 AM
To: Arcamo, Judith; Musante, John; Mooring, Guilford; Seaman, Katherine
Cc: O'Keefe, Stephanie
Subject: RE: Kendrick park structure

I have to get up to see the structure.

I am trying to figure out a balance for the use of the park. Interesting aspects of community life highlighted in brief displays may be a way to achieve a level of excitement. In many ways, I am trying to figure out a good mix of usages….passive, interesting, temporary.

Hope you are well.

Larry

From: Arcamo, Judith
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 9:31 AM
To: Musante, John; Mooring, Guilford; Seaman, Katherine
Cc: Shaffer, Larry; O'Keefe, Stephanie
Subject: RE: Kendrick park structure

Yes, Larry approved this back in August. The event begins today through the 11th during meal times 2:00 to 7:00 p.m.

Judith
Administrative Assistant to the Town Manager

From: Musante, John
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:46 AM
To: Mooring, Guilford; Arcamo, Judith; Seaman, Katherine
Cc: Shaffer, Larry
Subject: FW: Kendrick park structure

???????

From: sjokeeffe@gmail.com (Stephanie O'Keeffe)
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:43 AM
To: Musante, John
Subject: Kendrick park structure

Just curious: The structure put up yesterday or the day before on Kendrick Park for Sukkot -- presumably someone asked permission to do that? How long will it be up? People will ask.

No Miracle on Boltwood Ave

Last night Amherst Town Manager Larry Shaffer once again reaffirmed that his unfair tax on the joy of Christmas has not been his “…most glorious moment in public administration.”

He also garnered little support from the Select Board. Kusner (looking at Shaffer): “We were caught off guard by this; I just want the public to know it was your decision.” Select person Brewer distanced herself: “Even though the Town Manager has the legal authority under the town act I would hope he will continue to talk to us about this…”

Brewer also (looking at scout representatives) wanted to publicly “thank the scouts for being so agreeable; I realize you didn’t have much choice…I’m glad we’re still talking about it.”

Clueless to the core (if indeed he has one), Shaffer still doesn’t get it. His bland” report” was a rehash of cold bureaucratic excuses.

Explaining his $1 per tree tariff Shaffer states: “They went away, set up their sale of Christmas trees. And I expected that arrangement would go on unbeknownst to anybody. Little did I know this would become the cause célèbre going forward.”

For a public official to arrange a deal in private, hoping that his dictatorial terms remain "unbeknownst", is bad policy.

UPDATE: 2:36 Yeah I know, the video just uploaded 10 minutes ago but my friend and fellow investigative blogger Paolo at northamptonist.blogspot.com just forwarded me the link to WHMP radio's softball interview with Shaffer. I love his comment at the outset "I don't know if anything went wrong." Talk about clueless.
http://www.theriverondemand.com/mp3/vannah/larryshaffer.mp3

UPADATE: 3:30 Ch. 22 enters the fray (what took them so long?). Where's the AP?
http://www.wwlp.com/Global/story.asp?S=7511628

Let the sunshine, let the sunshine in

Former Town Manager Larry Shaffer, standing center (way back in his angelic days)

From: White, Donald (SEC)
To: amherstac@aol.com
Sent: Mon, Feb 14, 2011 10:30 am
Subject: Public Records Appeal - SPR11/009

Mr. Kelley,

I wanted to provide you with a brief update on the status of the public records appeal that you submitted to this office. I have been in communication with the counsel for the Town of Amherst to discuss the information redacted from the 8/30/10 Amherst Select Board Executive Session Meeting Minutes. At this time, town counsel has withheld that information and asserted Exemption (c) – The Privacy Exemption. Although the town has asserted this exemption, I am awaiting further information that will support the use of this exemption. I expect to speak further with town counsel next week, as they are out of the office this week.

Please feel free to let me know if you have any further questions, but I at least wanted to provide you with the information that I had on the appeal to date. Thank you.


Donald White
Staff Attorney


Dear Mr White,

Thank you for the brief update. Nice when a government agency in charge of Open Meetings can be so open themselves. I hope when you make your final decision I can also receive the results via electronic mail.

As I'm sure you know, 'Exemption C The Privacy Exemption' is the #1 reason cited by municipal officials for turning down Public Documents requests. But public officials have a lesser expectation of privacy than the taxpayers who fund their salaries.

And the state allows the exception to be trumped when "there is a paramount public interest in disclosure." Indeed I strongly believe the sudden departure of Town Manager Larry Shaffer, taking with him four months of salary, rises to level of "paramount public interest"; and since he very soon thereafter reentered the job market in Michigan, I'm sure it was not a medical condition that fueled his hasty flight.

The redacted lone sentence I seek represents one half of the 120 minute Executive Session, as Select Board Chair Stephanie O'Keeffe covered the entire meeting with only two sentences. That too is questionable record keeping.

Maintaining public trust should be your paramount concern. When elected local officials hatch backroom deals in a private manner financed with public taxpayer money, it diminishes that sacred trust.

Again, thank you for considering this important matter.
Larry Kelley

Correction: The Executive Session was one hour-and-twenty-minutes (80 minutes) not two hours (120 minutes). Still, pretty hard to capture in only two sentences

A brewing storm over Monday's SB meeting

UPDATE: 9:00 AM. Somebody just sent me this link below about a young lady wanting to march in a 7/4 Parade topless. Yahooooooo! Notice they have a City Councilor as naive and clueless as our own Select Board Chair Gerry Weiss.
Maybe she will come to Amherst's Protest Parade next year!

Original upload. Thursday 6:30 AM:

In a message dated 6/18/08 11:14:06 AM, avbrewer@comcast.net writes:
Since you left the parade committee, I didn't include you on the cc, but obviously...
Alisa

From: Alisa Brewer (Amherst Select Board)
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 11:11:40 AM To: Select Board
Cc: Seaman, Katherine; Weston, Gail; Arcamo, Judith; Chalfant, Linda; Musante, John; Scherpa, Charles; Hoyle, Keith; David Clooney
Helen Thelen (CF); Rothery, Carol; Peter Vickery

Subject: Re: July 4 parade: 250th rules (was: Fairness)

Hi Larry-

I assume the documents I requested below (items 1, 2, 3) will be in our Agenda packets for our Select Board meeting June 23, 2008, rather than at our desks when we arrive

Also, some legal opinion as described in that email (although not numbered item 4):

I also assume Larry is seeking Town Counsel guidance around various parade concerns, particularly as regards how to effectively handle people who "slip in" to the parade rather than register and follow the rules (regardless of one's opinion of said rules); I believe that truly is the crux of the frustration some folks are feeling, because having rules allowing or disallowing various messages is one thing, but if someone simply doesn't present themselves to the parade "authority" for "approval" -- as happened in 2005, below -- and just "slips in," there arises another problem. If a "town" parade -- whether the 250th parade or a July 4 parade (or the LSSE Halloween parade, for that matter) -- is not going to "enforce" any or some of the parade "standards" or "rules" it publishes, that would need to be very clear very soon.

Please also include all additional parade-related letters/correspondence to and from the Town since the below email of April 29, such as the one described in the local newspaper as from the ACLU, and some correspondence with the AG office and Amherst Board of Registrars (see Larry Kelley's blog for photos of these, http://onlyintherepublicofamherst.blogspot.com/)

Please also include a print of two pages (links follows) from the private parade committee's website, as it is the material the public is currently seeing (we all received copies of letters including this material in the past, but for completeness the current webpage is important):
http://amherstjuly4thparade.com/id1.html (mission)
http://amherstjuly4thparade.com/id3.html (rules)

Please also include a brief written summary of your Town-run-July-4-2009-parade conversations with LSSE so far, especially vis a vis projected costs for the Town running the parade on Saturday July 4, 2009, with acknowledgment that the the same fundraising sources are being tapped for the usual annual LSSE July 4 activities as well as for the new Amherst 250th Parade of Sunday September 27, 2009 and the new Hadley 350th celebration.

Please also include a brief written summary of your conversations with our public safety departments regarding their feelings/opinions about their history of participation in the current private July 4 parade as well as in the proposed Town-run-July-4-2009-parade. Please include your discussion of whether you, as Town Manager, intend to *allow* our firefighters and police officers to march in a private 2009 parade as well as in the Town-run-July-4-2009-parade, including the alternatives of separate days for two parades in 2009 and two parades being held the same day on July 4, 2009.

I realize this is a lot of work, but given the circumstances I don't see we have a choice.

Below I have also included an email I sent to Gerry and Larry in April. As it clearly states my opinions, it is important that this entire email itself also be printed and placed in our packet for June 23, 2008.

Thank you for your support.

Take care,
Alisa

Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 3:46:31 PM
To: Shaffer, Larry
Cc: Select Board; Weston, Gail
Subject: July 4 parade: 250th rules (was: Fairness)

Hi Larry-

Even though we may not have a Select Board Agenda item regarding the July 4 parade until a June Select Board meeting, per Gerry's comments last night, please provide the following documents to us as soon as possible, preferably in both electronic and hard copy form:

1. A copy of the Amherst 250th Anniversary Celebration Committee's Parade Subcommittee Parade Rules/Standards for September 27, 2009 (the document the excerpts in Larry Kelley's blog, and Kevin Joy's statement last night, and the excerpts from Gerry's email yesterday apparently came from)

2. A copy of the Hadley 350th Anniversary Celebration Parade Rules/Standards for June 14, 2009

3. A copy of the Northampton 350th Anniversary Parade Rules/Standards from their celebration June 6, 2004

And for those of you looking for the Supreme Court Hurley ruling mentioned during these conversations:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-749.ZO.html

I also assume Larry is seeking Town Counsel guidance around various parade concerns, particularly as regards how to effectively handle people who "slip in" to the parade rather than register and follow the rules (regardless of one's opinion of said rules); I believe that truly is the crux of the frustration some folks are feeling, because having rules allowing or disallowing various messages is one thing, but if someone simply doesn't present themselves to the parade "authority" for "approval" -- as happened in 2005, below -- and just "slips in," there arises another problem. If a "town" parade -- whether the 250th parade or a July 4 parade (or the LSSE Halloween parade, for that matter) -- is not going to "enforce" any or some of the parade "standards" or "rules" it publishes, that would need to be very clear very soon.

It seems as though an update in the Town Manager's report at each Select Board meeting could be worthwhile and effective.

In order to avoid any appearance of Open Meeting Law violation in spirit, I would appreciate it if this email thread appeared in our next Select Board Agenda packet/on the table Wednesday night.

Thank you for your support.

Take care,
Alisa

pg 42 General Bylaws

PARADES AND PUBLIC MEETINGS
(ATM - March 11, 1970 - Art. 25)

1. A public meeting, parade or other event may be held on any town common or town way on reservation therefor first being secured from the town manager who shall issue it unless the meeting, parade or other event would conflict with another already so reserved, or unless the parade would so interfere with the vehicular traffic as to present a safety hazard. In the latter event, the town manager shall design an alternative parade route which shall adequately achieve the purposes of the paraders. Nothing shall prevent a nominee for elective governmental office speaking to any group, or an informal, spontaneous gathering of less than 75 persons, on any town common, without such reservation, if such activity does not interfere with another event already in progress or previously so reserved. Failure to obtain a reservation for a parade shall be punishable by a fine of not over $50.00.
------------------------------------------------------
pg 11 Amherst Town Government Act

3.244 Regulation of public ways
The select board shall control and regulate the public ways.

pg 15 Amherst Town Government Act

4.63 Supervision of town properties
The town manager shall have jurisdiction over the rental, use, maintenance, and repair of all town property except school property and property under the control of the town library trustees. The town manager shall be responsible for the preparation of plans and the supervision of work on existing buildings or on the construction of new buildings other than school buildings and buildings under the control of the library trustees. The town manager shall maintain and repair school buildings if and to the extent that the school committee requests, and the town manager shall maintain and repair buildings under the control of the library trustees if and to the extent that they so request.

[ Originally published on: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 ]

To the editor:

I write in response to letters by Jean Fay and Paul Hollander about me.

Hollander's letter, claiming that I was part of an effort here in Amherst ''to suppress or curtail the celebration of July 4th,'' boggles the mind. It was really parade organizers that were curtailing the celebration by excluding certain groups, in particular SAGE, which prompted my suggestion to the Select Board that they not be allowed to use town vehicles.

The next night, Parade Committee member, Kevin Joy, telephoned Fay to let her know that I told the Select Board that I represented the Amherst Democratic Committee. Joy also told SAGE that I had posed as their representative!

Contrary to Fay's claim, I never assured her that I ''would not do anything that could be considered offensive by anyone involved in the parade.'' What she had actually asked me for was my assurance that ''no one who marched in the Democratic contingent would be disruptive.'' I told her that I could not control what others do.

Christina Rose and I chose not to join the other Democrats. With our antiwar signs saying, ''This war is illegal'' and ''GIs must refuse to go,'' we slipped in behind their group because a big gap at that point allowed us good visibility. A Democratic Committee member even informed Joy that we were not part of their group.

Why, then, did Fay single me out when a man with a protest sign marched with her for the entire parade route? Failing to grasp Kevin Joy's agenda, Fay let herself be intimidated into attacking me and offering her fatuous apology for protests against the war at a parade that turned out to be an ode to militarism.

Mary L. Wentworth, Amherst

From: Mary L Wentworth
Date: July 11, 2005 9:56:53 PM EST
To: Amherst Democratic Town Committee
Subject: [adtc] The Other Side of the Story


I hope that the following provides a context for and another view of the Fourth of July Parade:


On the Monday before July Fourth I went to the meeting of the Select Board to express concern about community groups being prevented from participating in this event. I was aware, as was the SB, that the Supreme Court had ruled that private parade organizations have the right of freedom of speech to shape the message that they wish to convey (in this case, a St. Patrick’s Day Parade Org. in Boston excluded a gay group) and can exclude groups that are not in sync with their message. This celebration, however, is our Independence Day. I suggested that the Town could withhold permission for town property, e.g., fire engines, ambulances,etc. from being used in the parade if various groups were not allowed to participate.

Early that evening I received a telephone call from a very angry Kevin Joy of the Parade Committee. He spent about twenty minutes trying to intimidate me. Among other statements, he told me that he had worked for the FBI and the CIA for twelve year. He demanded a statement from me about the right to bear arms and threatened me with having to appear on the Bill O’Reilly Show. etc. Later on, I had another call. This time from Susan Theberge from SAGE, a group that was being told that they could not march this year because they had violated the no-anti-war-signs rule last year. If last year the PC had talked with members of a group carrying anti-war signs they would have discovered that they were out-of-town Quakers and had nothing to do with SAGE even though they were marching behind them.

Susan had a question that she said she would like to ask me. When I went to the SB had I told them that I was a member of SAGE and represented SAGE at the SB? She said that although she had never met me, she did not think that I would do that, but she had to ask because KJ had told her that I had. The next night, Jean called, and in a very different tone of voice, demanded to know whether I had told the SB that I represented the Amherst Democratic Town Committee. Again, it was KJ at work. I said I thought this guy was off his rocker, but Jean said,NO, she knew his family because she had had his two older boys in kindergarten. The talk turned to the parade. Jean expressed concern about exposing her daughter to disruption during the parade and that, after all, the parade is for the kids. She talked about her concern that parents who would be sending children to her kindergarten class would get the wrong impression of her if something happened. I answered that I thought people in Amherst realized that many of us wear different hats at different times. Jean said that she was going to pull the ADTC application unless I could assure her that no one would be disruptive in the Democratic contingent. I replied that I could not do that because I had no control over what people might do. I made no promises concerning my plans, one way or the other.

Christina Rose and I went to the Common on the Fourth, wearing our signs which read THIS WAR IS ILLEGAL and GIs MUST REFUSE TO GO. We slipped into the parade when we saw a good-sized gap between a convertible carrying some vets and the ADTC. We walked about fifteen feet behind the ADTC contingent and about fifteen feet in front of the convertible, giving our signs good visibility. We had decided beforehand that we would not be part of the ADTC contingent because 1) the contingent would not have gotten through the starting point and 2) the Committee’s desire to march in next year’s parade would have been put in jeopardy if this PC remains in charge. When we joined the parade we could easily have moved up right into the ADTC group at that time or at any other time, but chose not to for the reason already cited.

When the parade came to a momentary halt opposite the fire station, Larry Kelley asked us to leave and we refused. Both Christina and I felt that we wanted to inject a different note to the over-all militarism of this parade. I had prepared a very brief leaflet that pointed out that not only was the war illegitimate according to international treaties and our Constitution but that those documents make it incumbent on us citizens to do everything in our power to stop our government from pursuing such a war — a crime against humanity. We felt that our signs were a contribution to this effort.

Then KJ appeared and was quite persistent, making the mistake of grabbing my arm. We told him that we were not leaving. Harry Brooks walked back from the ADTC contingent to speak with KJ who wanted to know if he was with us. Harry said, “No, I’m with them” pointing to the ADTC and making the distinction. KJ left and the parade moved on, but not before I noticed that someone was carrying a sign in the ADTC group that said, HONOR THE BILL OF RIGHTS in small letters and END THE GULAG in big ones. Wow! This sign was allowed into the contingent when it drew attention to this disgusting aspect of the war on terrorism.

As Christina and I approached the intersection of Triangle and East Pleasant, we could see a police officer starting to move toward us and, feeling that we had passed the bulk of the spectators, we moved off to one side. I am told that Jean, rather than telling Kevin Joy in no uncertain terms that we were not part of her group, apologized to him which, of course, reaffirmed his position that we were, overriding what Harry had told him.

When The Republican came out with the PC’s version of events, I wrote a letter which was published on Friday, correcting the error, and ended by asking, “Isn’t it a little strange that freedom of speech can’t be tolerated on the Fourth of July?”

Mary Wentworth

*From: *Alisa Brewer >
*Date: *April 16, 2008 1:22:46 PM EDT
*To: *"Gerry Weiss (Select Board)" >
*Cc: *"Larry Shaffer (TOWN MGR)" >
*Subject: **July 4 Parade Select Board agenda item?*

Hi Gerry-

Remember how I insisted Monday night at our April 14, 2008 Select Board meeting that we needed to be clear what was supposed to be the *point* of the future July 4 Parade agenda item you said we need?

I know time is short, but I hope you've had some time to think about what the July 4 Parade Agenda item will be labeled, and what the plan for handling it will be, and how that plan will be communicated both prior to and at the Select Board meeting. And of course it will need to be more widely advertised than our usual Select Board agenda items.


All I see here with a July 4 Parade agenda item is a public relations debacle,* with perfectly reasonable folks having more fodder for accusing us of spending too much time on distractions rather than on our long term budget deficit and upcoming Town Meeting business.

We know Larry Kelley's blog is not particularly widely read, and his actions often more likely more harmful to the private July 4 parade committee's work than helpful, but we must be sure not to lump Larry Kelley, Helen, and Kevin together when dealing with all this, much less with all the other private July 4 parade committee members and supporters. Just as Larry Kelley is not *the* July 4 parade committee, the Amherst Town Democratic Committee is not *the* face of Amherst Democrats, and Harry Brooks is obviously not the face of the Amherst Town Democratic Committee, either. Nor is the LWV Amherst "position" of a year or two back of any particular representation of all LWV Amherst members. Although issues by a small number of people are important just like those raised by larger numbers are important, we'd be remiss in our Select Board duties to let all the furor stirred by a very small handful of folks who simply refuse to compromise distract us from our work.

I have no idea why three July 4 Parade committee members came forward during public comment at our April 14 meeting (and expect that in hindsight they are sorry they did), but I do understand their apparent desire to be able to move on from the concerns that have been brought up over and over during the past few years, just as I believe you seem to feel the free speech issues involved have not been adequately addressed.

I see that we have a couple of things to "settle" in the Select Board July 4 Parade agenda item:

1. The Select Board's role in signing off on activities associated with the public way: similar to the Cushman May Day festivities, the LSSE Halloween parade, etc. The necessary paperwork for that decision, showing Public Works & Public Safety approvals like the annual May Day festivities just did, should be prepared for and handled at the same Select Board meeting you schedule this July 4 Parade agenda item for, not inadvertently pushed out so that it can all be revisited for the umpteeith time closer to July 4. Clearly Public Works & Public Safety are already working under the assumption they need to "make way" for the July 4 Parade route. We need to get the underlying infrastructure established out of respect for the town personnel handling those arrangements, modifications, etc..

2. The Select Board's role in charging for the services needed by a parade: The Select Board does not, to my knowledge, establish how much "parade services" cost, as I don't recall seeing any reference to such associated with past parades such as this July 4 parade, the LSSE Halloween parades, past Earth Day parade, Memorial Day parades, upcoming 250th parade, etc.. It is my understanding that the Town Manager establishes this fee schedule. The private July 4 Parade committee has not, to my knowledge, complained in any fashion about the amounts they are going to be charged in fees. Simply stating the Select Board's role here may be useful to the public.

3. The Select Board's role regarding town personnel & equipment marching in a parade: the Select Board does not decide whether or not the firefighter & police personnel & equipment (and any other interested Town departments, such as LSSE, Senior Center, etc.) march in a parade. The Town Manager is the manager of those personnel and resources. Our Select Board role is limited to convincing him to do it our way, similar to the Human Services Funding funding mechanisms preferences established by the Select Board against the advice of the Town Manager.

4. The Select Board's role in communicating the ownership of the parade to our community: Yes, people from outside Amherst would not necessarily recognize that a July 4 Parade is not run by the Town itself, but it is also true that many communities across our country do not run their own parades, but instead have the parades run by private organizations. If anything, this privatization is becoming more widespread over time as municipalities find their resources stretched further and further. We know for a fact that our Town cannot afford, in money or person hours, to run a Town July 4 parade; it's simply too big an endeavor with our limited resources. Since we don't "own" the parade, and a private entity does "own" it, the rules of free speech and freedom of assembly are somewhat differently applied. The Select Board and the Town Manager can try to bring people together to come to a common understanding of the rules in order to maximize everyone's pleasure with the private July 4 parade, but we have relatively little "hold" over the parade itself, as described above. If you do not believe that the Town cannot force the private parade to accept any and all participants, you should ask Town Counsel to explain it during this Select Board agenda item. I would ask you to be cautious in any public assertions, in that it was previously misstated at a Select Board meeting something to the effect that being unhappy with the national Boy Scouts of America discrimination policies might be reason to discuss the Amherst Boy Scouts Christmas tree sales, when clearly most members of the Select Board were not aware that the national Boy Scouts of America (revolting) discrimination policies are legally protected as a private *and* patriotic organization.
Communicating the ownership of the private July 4 parade can also include publicly recognizing that in some communities, private parade organizations have *not* established any reasons to refuse anyone's participation in their private parade. It is also true that is some communities, private parade organizations have *not* faced that utter insistence that *any* slogan is appropriate and permissible, whether it has anything to do with *identifying* the entity marching or not. It is also true that in some communities, the private parade is a lot more like a block party with costumes, where everyone does their own thing, and that sort of parade does not clearly delineate between "parade" and "protest" and "rally." That does not happen to be the choice of the current private July 4 parade committee. That may be the choice of a future parade committee. No one is forcing the public to acknowledge or attend any private parade; people can "vote with their feet."

5. The Select Board's role in participating in the private July 4 parade: Given all of the above, and that the Select Board has been invited to participate in the private July 4 parade, it would be appropriate to discuss during this July 4 agenda item whether the Select Board will be marching in the private July 4 parade. If it become apparent during this July 4 parade agenda item that the Select Board is not yet ready to make that decision, then that separate issue of Select Board marching as a Select Board could be on a later agenda. Given all that has been discussed, it would make sense to at some point take a formal position on the Select Board's marching participation, both as a statement of the Select Board's support or lack thereof of the private July 4 parade, and as clear direction to any Select Board members who may be interested in marching in the private July 4 parade. It does not benefit anyone to have that be unclear.

I'm really sorry this is so long. I do very much appreciate your consideration.

Take care,
Alisa

*http://onlyintherepublicofamherst.blogspot.com/2008/04/declaration-of-independence.html

http://www.gazettenet.com/beta/2008/04/16/select-board-discuss-parades-level-inclusion
##################################################################

So I guess the only email I would add to this long exchange from Select Person Brewer to all the Powers That Be is this one (same time frame) gained through public documents law:
From: Chalfant, Linda
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 4:45 PM
To: Del Castilho, Barry; Musante, John
Subject: The Parade

I just received two phone calls from Harry Brooks asking if LSSE would
handle the July 4th parade next year. Since he called twice - I told
him:

- my knowledge of parades is nil

- this is an extremely busy time for the department and we struggle to
handle all of the special events that we currently have in addition to
the summer programs

- it is unlikely that we could handle this additional assignment without
adding staff

Linda Chalfant, Director
Amherst Leisure Services and Supplemental Education